Biden cancels all oil, gas drilling leases in Alaskan Arctic wildlife refuge

[d taylor]

Is the good Captain a wildcatter? Does/did he work in the oil production industry?

Might have or he may have been an investor. So was it before or after biden left the Capt. Standing, did biden cancel all the oil leases. Cause if biden can not understand that he should have stood with the Capt. at the ceremony. How can he understand that canceling the oil leases was a stupid thing to do.

 

[FenderTL5]

Carping about issues of law just sidesteps the big issue. Throughout history human beings have pillaged natural resources without thought or care for the consequences. Now the consequences are obvious; the natural environment is near to collapse.

We need to address these consequences. If Valletta and I pay a bit more for gas, it is in our power to reduce our consumption of it.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm all for cleaner energy and less reliance on fossil fuels.
If the powers that be want to incentivise a move in that direction I'm agreeable. Further, if the powers that be want to disincentivize reliance on fossil fuels at the same time, I can support that also even if it costs a little more in the short term.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

I just love how stopping oil drilling in a wildlife refuge is seen as a bad thing.

 

[Arcangl86]

Executive orders are not the law and cannot supercede the law.

Actually they are. If you want to be technical about it they are what is called secondary legislation I will agree they cannot violate primary legislation, but that's not what happened here anyway. .

Decisions as to what is or is not in violation of the law are made by our judicial branch.

Final call? Sure. But implementation of the law requires interpretation so one knows what actions to take. The Biden Administration believes that they have the legal authority to cancel this lease. The state of Alaska disagrees, and they are more than welcome to issue suit to enforce performance in which case the courts will determine if the action was legal. You seem to be arguing that any actions need to be cleared by the courts first, which is not how our system works and has never been how it worked.

 

[Whyayeman]

I just love how stopping oil drilling in a wildlife refuge is seen as a bad thing.

The Alaskans are not always the best custodians of their own environment. These are the people who invented the 'sport' of shooting bears with M15s from helicopters, after all.

 

[Pommer]

Our country has three branches of government. The judicial branch is the authority on deciding what is legal or illegal. The courts could, and have before, ruled that an executive order is in violation of the law. For example, the courts could decide that an E.O. issued by a president was not within the scope of power delegated by Congress. An order by Joe is like an order by police, it is supposed to be within the law. The legality of any law is not supposed to be decided by Joe or by the police, that is up to the courts.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how our government functions.
The “will of ‘we the people’” is executed through the legislative branch of government.

This is accomplished by Congress (the House of Representatives & the Senate) passing Acts that create Agencies that populate the various Departments and then, (with the advice and consent of the Congress) promulgate Regulations (which have the effect of Law, [based upon the aforementioned “Acts of Congress”], that the rest of us have to obey.

These “unelected bureaucrats” are charged, by the Congress, to run their agencies according to the Laws and Acts and whatever they decide is to be adhered to by all of the rest of us.

Should an agency decide a thing, it is in the realm of possibility that the same agency will rescind its own rulings; if there arises a controversy that cannot be resolved within the agency only then are the parties to go before a court which adjudicates if the Agency or the party with the grievance should prevail, (again) based on the Laws and Acts passed by the Congress.

If an agency is directed by, say, a President, to decide a matter in a certain way, (President Trump’s Interior Department issuing a drilling permit) then, should a subsequent President direct the same agency to rescind this same drilling permit, both Executive Orders are lawful and need to be implemented in the manner as directed by the President.

If Joe can’t “decide” to nullify the previous order then neither could Trump “decide” to issue the order in the first place, there isn’t a case here.

 

[Pommer]

Might have or he may have been an investor. So was it before or after biden left the Capt. Standing, did biden cancel all the oil leases. Cause if biden can not understand that he should have stood with the Capt. at the ceremony. How can he understand that canceling the oil leases was a stupid thing to do.

He’s the President, he’s allowed to make stupid decisions.
But they’re his decisions to make.

 

[Larniavc]

A number of my neighbors have turn their entire front yards into pollinator gardens with all sorts of native wild flowers and grasses. It's really lovely and offers way more variety and draws more kinds of creatures than the usual lawn grass and shrubbery. I've seen more bumblebees this year than I have in the rest of my life combined.

We only mow our lawns at the end of Autumn to let the flowers do their jobs.

 

[Valletta]

Actually they are. If you want to be technical about it they are what is called secondary legislation I will agree they cannot violate primary legislation, but that's not what happened here anyway. .

Final call? Sure. But implementation of the law requires interpretation so one knows what actions to take. The Biden Administration believes that they have the legal authority to cancel this lease. The state of Alaska disagrees, and they are more than welcome to issue suit to enforce performance in which case the courts will determine if the action was legal. You seem to be arguing that any actions need to be cleared by the courts first, which is not how our system works and has never been how it worked.

Don't assume what "the Biden administration believes." The governor of Alaska has already said the state will sue. The complaint is about Joe acting like a king, that is not how our founders viewed the presidency. Had the Biden administration had problems with the contract they should have sat down with officials from Alaska and tried to work things out. But that's not how they operate.

 

[Whyayeman]

Don't assume what "the Biden administration believes." The governor of Alaska has already said the state will sue. The complaint is about Joe acting like a king, that is not how our founders viewed the presidency. Had the Biden administration had problems with the contract they should have sat down with officials from Alaska and tried to work things out. But that's not how they operate.

We are discussing contracts signed off on the day Trump left office. I get the feeling that the real reason for the fuss about their cancellation is more to do with that than anything else. Such as distracting the American public from the 99 criminal indictments Trump is currently defending.

There are excellent reasons for these ridiculous contracts to be cancelled. We should all be more concerned with the pernicious effects of pumping more and more carbon dioxide into the air and further destroying our precious environment by intrusive, destructive technology.

If Biden can be challenged in court over this (which I doubt) I sincerely hope he wins.

 

[Valletta]

We are discussing contracts signed off on the day Trump left office. I get the feeling that the real reason for the fuss about their cancellation is more to do with that than anything else. Such as distracting the American public from the 99 criminal indictments Trump is currently defending.

There are excellent reasons for these ridiculous contracts to be cancelled. We should all be more concerned with the pernicious effects of pumping more and more carbon dioxide into the air and further destroying our precious environment by intrusive, destructive technology.

If Biden can be challenged in court over this (which I doubt) I sincerely hope he wins.

Of course Biden can be challenged in court, again, he is not a king. Joe has already made it hard enough on the indigenous people of Alaska and many others with his "Bidenomics."

 

[Pommer]

Of course Biden can be challenged in court, again, he is not a king. Joe has already made it hard enough on the indigenous people of Alaska and many others with his "Bidenomics."

Oh lookie yet another assertion of the President being mean to citizens to score a cheap political point.
@Whyayeman is correct this is a “but Biden” thread to take the heat off of 45.

 

[Valletta]

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how our government functions.
The “will of ‘we the people’” is executed through the legislative branch of government.

This is accomplished by Congress (the House of Representatives & the Senate) passing Acts that create Agencies that populate the various Departments and then, (with the advice and consent of the Congress) promulgate Regulations (which have the effect of Law, [based upon the aforementioned “Acts of Congress”], that the rest of us have to obey.

These “unelected bureaucrats” are charged, by the Congress, to run their agencies according to the Laws and Acts and whatever they decide is to be adhered to by all of the rest of us.

Should an agency decide a thing, it is in the realm of possibility that the same agency will rescind its own rulings; if there arises a controversy that cannot be resolved within the agency only then are the parties to go before a court which adjudicates if the Agency or the party with the grievance should prevail, (again) based on the Laws and Acts passed by the Congress.

If an agency is directed by, say, a President, to decide a matter in a certain way, (President Trump’s Interior Department issuing a drilling permit) then, should a subsequent President direct the same agency to rescind this same drilling permit, both Executive Orders are lawful and need to be implemented in the manner as directed by the President.

If Joe can’t “decide” to nullify the previous order then neither could Trump “decide” to issue the order in the first place, there isn’t a case here.

“It’s clear that President Biden needs a refresher on the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine,” Dunleavy said in an official press release. “Federal agencies don’t get to rewrite laws, and that is exactly what the Department of the Interior is trying to do here.”

Biden Cancels Alaska Oil & Gas Leases

President Biden is catching flak from both sides of the aisle for canceling drilling in Alaska.On Wednesday his administration abruptly revoked seven 10-year oil and gas leases that spanned more than 365,000 acres in a non-wilderness area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).Granting...

thenewamerican.com

This article is spot on.

 

[Pommer]

“It’s clear that President Biden needs a refresher on the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine,” Dunleavy said in an official press release. “Federal agencies don’t get to rewrite laws, and that is exactly what the Department of the Interior is trying to do here.”

Biden Cancels Alaska Oil & Gas Leases

President Biden is catching flak from both sides of the aisle for canceling drilling in Alaska.On Wednesday his administration abruptly revoked seven 10-year oil and gas leases that spanned more than 365,000 acres in a non-wilderness area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).Granting...

thenewamerican.com

This article is spot on.

Why such a need to open ANWR to oil speculators?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

“It’s clear that President Biden needs a refresher on the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine,” Dunleavy said in an official press release. “Federal agencies don’t get to rewrite laws, and that is exactly what the Department of the Interior is trying to do here.”

Federal agencies exercise oversight power over things under their purview.

For instance, as long as the DEA exists, that department has the power and authority to shut an operation down if a township decided to try to legalize recreational heroin dispensaries.

They're not rewriting laws, they're exercising regulatory oversight powers granted to them by other existing laws.


To provide a comparable example that may shine a different light on things for your perspective.

Ron DeSantis exercised state-level oversight and authority by suspending prosecutors who were duly elected, because they were failing to uphold state laws and going out of bounds. Was that decision right or wrong? He also exercised state-level authority by pushing to negate an arrangement Disney had with previous administrations.

By the logic you're laying out here, it'd be like trying to denounce that decision by saying "Governors don't get to overturn regional elections or negate local land contracts".

I'd argue that the wielding of federal power of state power in this case is strikingly similar to the wielding of state power of local power that Ron DeSantis engages in regularly (some of those instances I agree with).

You can't have it both ways here....you can't selectively choose which level of government has the most power entirely dependent on what entity happens to be on your side for a particular hot button issue.

It's like the people who voice support for DOMA, but then suddenly said "well, the states should decide" after SSM became recognized federally. And I'll pick on the left too... like when some people were 10th amendment aficionados when states wanted to legalize pot against the fed's wishes, but then all of the sudden made states' rights a dirty word when it came to Roe v Wade and abortion laws.

Consistency is key...pick your poison.

 

[Valletta]

Why such a need to open ANWR to oil speculators?

Joe's war on American fossil fuels is not a secret. Those in the private oil business saw what was happening, how Joe's regulatory people tied projects up in knots, and so they stay away. We need to get the private sector involved again.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Joe's war on American fossil fuels is not a secret. Those in the private oil business saw what was happening, how Joe's regulatory people tied projects up in knots, and so they stay away. We need to get the private sector involved again.

"War on" implies that it's a bad thing...

When it became abundantly clear that things like DDT pesticides, Asbestos, and Freon were damaging to health and ecology, was it a "war on XYZ", or a prudent decision to curtail the production and use of those things.

Where I think we'd likely agree (I'm assuming here), is that proposal for many of the green energy initiatives (wind, solar, tidal) are far fetched...but tend to be a way to win quick & easy liberal votes.

I tend to gauge how serious someone takes energy policy (on both sides) by their receptiveness to supplanting as much coal/oil we can with nuclear.

If someone on the left shoots it down and says "no, I want solar panels and windmills instead", I assume they're simply opposing oil to smite their political opponents.

If someone on the right defends oil/coal to their dying breath, I assume they're doing it because they know that defending it triggers the people on the left who they find to be annoying so they're just taking a contrarian position for that reason.

 

[durangodawood]

...
If someone on the left shoots it down and says "no, I want solar panels and windmills instead", I assume they're simply opposing oil to smite their political opponents.

If someone on the right defends oil/coal to their dying breath, I assume they're doing it because they know that defending it triggers the people on the left who they find to be annoying so they're just taking a contrarian position for that reason.

I think its mostly because people are A. poorly informed and B. wedded to party line positions for political solidarity reasons.

Just doing it to offend the "other side" is too silly.

 

[Pommer]

Joe's war on American fossil fuels is not a secret. Those in the private oil business saw what was happening, how Joe's regulatory people tied projects up in knots, and so they stay away. We need to get the private sector involved again.

He’s losing that war, as we’ve seen the USA’s oil production soar in recent months.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think its mostly because people are A. poorly informed and B. wedded to party line positions for political solidarity reasons.

Just doing it to offend the "other side" is too silly.

You'd think "just doing it to offend the other side" would be a stupid/silly reason...and you'd be right, but a lot of people do it.

I've seen oversized pick-up trucks (that the person clearly doesn't need) with bumper stickers reading "this truck runs on liberal tears"...driven by people who claim to be upset about gas prices, but yet still have the expendable income to order a 30-pack of Biden "I did that" stickers to illegally stick on any gas pump they can find.

Likewise, I've seen bumper stickers on hybrids reading "There are no jobs on a dead planet", or ones like this:

At this point in the game, anyone who's not on-board with supplanting fossil fuels with nuclear is being deliberately difficult. The research is well-known. It's more effective than any of the "green" energy solutions, and it's less harmful and more sustainable than fossil fuels.

I hate to sound like a cynic, but it really has devolved to a "I know liberals hate coal so I'll promote that" vs. "I know conservatives hate the idea of replacing coal, so I'll promote the alternatives I know they dislike the most"


What's ironic is that the left touts themselves as the "follow the science" crowd, and right has touted themselves as the "I'll embrace the alternative" ... yet on the topic of nuclear, neither side is living up to their supposed reputation.


It should be one of the things most people could agree on.